Slashdot Mirror
More Patent Worries for Mobile Phones
loekf writes "After the story about NTP suing Research In Motion over alleged patent infringement (do your homework, U.S. Patent Office!), there's another story on The Inquirer about a U.S. firm, Antor Media, suing a lot of companies over a 'Method and apparatus for transmitting information recorded on information storage means from a central server to subscribers via a high data rate digital telecommunications network,' see: U.S. Patent 5,734,961. When does the hurting stop!?"
RTFP! It's about a music server, that plays disks to subscribers. Just read the abstract and you'll see that it is not that vague and it has nothing to do with webservers.
On the other hand, it doesn't sound very innovative to me.
Please read the patent, before you post anything like "that would affect webservers as well" or "they patented the internet". It has nothing to do with it. I'll make it easier for you:
"[...]a magazine containing a very large number of disks, disk players, a controller for transfer of the disks between the magazine and the disk players, a central computer, a memory for storing information relating to the locations of the disks, and a multiplexer. Each of the subscriber stations includes a communication interface connected to the network, a computing terminal, a demultiplexer, a data rate expansion circuit, a digital-to-analog converter, and a transducer for converting analog signals into humanly perceptible signals. In one example, the invention provides for the delivery to a subscriber of a personalized sound program selected from a large directory of available selections."
It is a music box server or something like that.
I read more than the abstract, and it describes music, images, text and software (eg games) being made available to subscribers' "terminals" using a "high data rate telecomunnications network" (ffs - Basic Rate ISDN is given as an example).
The title of the patent is ALWAYS vague. The abstract almost as vague. And even the claims, which truly define the scope of the invention and are what is asserted as one's intellectual property, are vague when taken by themselves. It is usually not until you read the claims in light of the rest of the specification that you can really get a glimpse of what is being "invented." Unfortunately, even then, it is difficult to tell what subject matter is truly protected. You really need to look at the entire file history (all the communications between the PTO and the patent prosecutor) to understand what subject matter is covered by the patent. This is a problem that comes up time and time again when technologists/scientists read patents. Patents are written in legalese (come on! who says, "said one of said plural subscriber stations" instead of "one of the subscriber stations"?????) I am not defending every patent that is issued these days. I am simply pointing out that what is really protected by a patent may be the the tiniest of details in a patent, which may in fact be inventive, and not every word or idea expressed in the patent. Sadly, it takes someone who works with patents on a regular basis, if not a patent lawyer, to really be able to identify what is protected by a patent and whether a company should be worried. (semi-frivolous patents happen, and so do semi-frivoulous suits on patents(frivolous or not)).
no, plenty of non-usa companies invent good stuff, ie in australia and uk and japan... but again they find it hard to hit the US market because US businesses are so US centric and only like to deal with other US companies, that was our experience, until you have a US office in the bay with a 1800# and a american accent.
Its the business deals and partnerships which are HARD to do if your not american, thats why american cmompanies like amazon work because they GET THE DEALs.
Good tax incentives help too, which some countries totally dont do well, "MORONS"
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Not the internet. This is a jukebox patent - the patent describes the machinery behind the network as part of the method. This is old shit that isn't used anymore.
Oh well, what the hell...
The most important parts of the formula are obvious:
1) Caffeine, a diuretic, to make you get rid of the liquid faster.
2) Salt to keep you thirsty for more.
3) Sugar (or other sweetening) to cover up the taste of the first two.
After that, the other ingredients don't count.